跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.124.56) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/02 08:25
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:羅慶璋
研究生(外文):Ching-Jang Lo
論文名稱:中學科學教師科技融入教學自我效能量表之建構與研究
論文名稱(外文):Investigating science teachers’ self-efficacy of technology-integrated instruction
指導教授:張欣怡博士洪振方博士
指導教授(外文):Hsin-Yi ChangJeng-Feng Hung
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:科學教育暨環境教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:專業科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:139
中文關鍵詞:科技融入科學教學自我效能多向度試題反應理論
外文關鍵詞:Science teachers’ self-efficacy of technology integrated instructionSelf-efficacyDifferential items functioningMultidimensional item response theory
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:258
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:13
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在應用多向度試題反應理論發展中學教師科技融入科學教學自我效能之測量工具,並探討中學科學教師有關科技融入教學之自我效能。在研究第一階段,以122位中學科學教師為樣本,主要進行工具發展部分,應用科技學科教學知識(Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, TPACK)之變形模式理論及自我效能相關理論為基礎,產生科技融入科學教學自我效能之構念與問卷題目,透過多向度試題反應理論確認構念的向度,刪除或修訂產生偏誤之試題,建立工具信、效度,之後進行試題反應理論模式分析,控管試題品質,以合理的測量理論發展科技融入科學教學自我效能研究工具,提供個別化的試題或受試者的施測結果分析資料,反思並修正試題的內容,得到第一向度「教師科技融入科學教學的自我效能信念(Personal technology-integrated science teaching efficacy belief)」17 題與第二向度「對科技融入科學教學與學生學習結果的期望信念(Technology integrated science teaching and students’ learning outcome expectancy)」10題,並確認二向度六等第共27題之自我效能量表設計方式為較佳試題模式,古典試題理論計算古典信度出Cronbach’s alpha為0.966,多向度試題反應理論計算信度的期望後驗估計值除以可能值(Expected A Posteriori/Plausible Value, EAP/PV)值為0.961。研究第二階段,以相同樣本122位中學科學教師為對象,藉由t考驗與單因子變異數分析比較不同背景的教師間其科技融入科學教學自我效能之差異,再使用試題反應理論的差異試題功能檢驗相同能力的教師群體對試題是否有差異反應,背景變項則包括性別、職務、學歷、任教學科、教學年資與學校規模、使用電腦於教學之頻率與科技融入教學之軟、硬體使用經驗等,t考驗結果僅發現「教學年資」此一背景變項在第一向度「教師科技融入科學教學的自我效能信念」中出現顯著差異,服務年資10年以下的教師之自我效能表現顯著優於服務年資10年以上之教師,其他如性別、職務、學歷、任教學科與學校規模等背景變項在兩向度中則都沒有出現顯著差異之情形,單因子變異數分析的結果發現最近使用過一種以上硬體、三種以上軟體與每周使用頻率一次以上的科學教師,有較高的科技融入教學自我效能。差異試題功能(differential items functioning, DIF)檢驗後發現少數題目有多重DIF或大DIF的情形,本研究提供科技融入教學之研究者一便利之工具,與未來工具使用者豐富的參考資訊。
The study aimed to develop an instrument measuring science teachers’ self-efficacy of technology integrated instruction(SETII), using multidimensional item response theory(MIRT) and investigate science teachers’ self-efficacy of technology integrated instruction. Content validity, construct validity and reliability were established based on the transformative, pratical Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge(TPACK) theory and teacher self-efficacy theory, and through statistical techniques.
After reducing the original SETII 59 items to 27 items within 2 dimensions, the tool included 17 items of “Personal Technology-Integrated Science Teaching Efficacy Belief” and 10 items of “Technology-Integrated Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy”. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the above two subscales were 0.908 and 0.966. MIRT’s reliability coefficients, that is, expected a posteriori/plausible value, were 0.996 and 0.961. The WrightMap shows good fitness between the items and the sample.
The sample included 122 science teachers from junior high schools in southern Taiwan.The quantitative analysis methods included t-test, and ANOVA to find differences between groups in gender, school sizes, educational background, positions, teaching subjects and digital experiences. The study also used differential items functioning (DIF) to check item differences. The t-test results showed significant differences only between teachers with teaching experience under 10 years who showed higher self-efficacy than those with teaching experience of above 10 years. The ANOVA results showed significant differences between teachers with different digital experiences(teachers who recently used above one kind of hardware, above 3 kinds of software and above once a week had more self-efficacy of technology integrated instruction). The DIF results also has implications on some suggestions for future teacher professional development.

目錄
目錄 ii
表次 iii
圖次 vi
摘要 vii
Abstract ix
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 3
第二節 研究目的 7
第三節 研究問題 8
第四節 研究範圍與限制 12
第五節 名詞釋義 13
第貳章 文獻探討 15
第一節 科技融入科學教學(technology-integrated science instruction) 15
一、科技學科教學知識(Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, TPACK)之類別 15
二、科技學科教學知識整合模型觀點與變形模型觀點 23
三、科技學科教學知識量表實徵研究 28
四、科技融入科學教學 34
第二節 科技融入科學教學自我效能 37
一、教師自我效能 37
二、科技融入科學教學自我效能相關量表 41
三、不同背景教師的科技融入教學自我效能相關研究 46
第三節 試題反應理論 49
一、運用於李克特式等第量表 49
二、差異試題功能 55
第參章 研究方法 57
第一節 科技融入教學自我效能之量表發展 58
一、建立工具之信、效度 61
二、運用羅序(Rasch)模式於本研究 64
第二節 探討不同背景與經驗科學教師之科技融入教學自我效能 66
第肆章 結果 69
第一節 科技融入科學教學自我效能之量表發展 69
一、內容(Content)效度 69
二、構念(Constructs)效度 72
三、信度 73
四、刪除誤差太大之試題,並保留適當題數的各向度試題 75
五、受試者自我效能與試題難度的對應分布圖 76
第二節 不同背景教師之科技融入科學教學自我效能 81
第三節 討論 115
第伍章 結論與建議 121
第一節 結論 121
第二節 建議 124
參考文獻 126
中文部分 126
英文部分 127
附錄 137
附錄一 調查問卷基本資料部分 137
附錄二 第一向度「教師科技融入科學教學的自我效能信念」作答原始答題總分與轉換成試題反應理論之後的總分轉換表 138
附錄三 第二向度「對科技融入科學教學與學生學習結果的期望信念」作答原始答題總分與轉換成試題反應理論之後的總分轉換表 139


表次
表2- 1 三種科技學科教學知識之理論模式之構念名稱與優缺點 26
表2- 2 TPACK的研究工具核心向度之分析表 32
表3- 1 樣本的背景描述表 錯誤! 尚未定義書籤。
表3- 2 重新編組後的樣本分布 68
表4- 1 科技融入科學教學自我效能後的試題分析表 70
表4- 2 科技融入教學自我效能量表59題(六等第)不同向度結構模式之契合度 72
表4- 3 原始59題試題與刪題後27題試題品質統計表現之比較 74
表4- 4 二個向度在刪除不適合題目後所包含的試題 75
表4- 5 刪除不適當題目後的精簡試題組 75
表4- 6 教師不同性別其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 81
表4- 7 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題性別DIF檢定摘要表 82
表4- 8 教師不同學校規模其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 84
表4- 9 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題學校規模DIF檢定摘要表 85
表4- 10 教師不同兼職工作其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 87
表4- 11 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題兼任行政工作與否DIF檢定摘要表 88
表4- 12 教師不同學歷其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 90
表4- 13 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題學歷DIF檢定摘要表 91
表4- 14 教師不同服務年資其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 93
表4- 15 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題服務年資DIF檢定摘要表 94
表4- 16 教師不同任教學科其科技融入科學教學自我效能獨立樣本t檢定 96
表4- 17 科技融入科學教學自我效能試題不同任教科目DIF檢定摘要表 97
表4- 18 教師使用不同種類硬體教學之科技融入科學教學自我效能同質性檢定 99
表4- 19 教師使用不同種類硬體教學之之科技融入科學教學自我效能差異比較 100
表4- 20 教師使用一種以上硬體進的教師與不使用硬體進行教學之科技融入科學教學自我效能DIF檢定摘要表 101
表4- 21 使用不同軟體教學種類教師之融入科學教學自我效能同質性檢定 103
表4- 22 教師使用不同種類軟體教學之之科技融入科學教學自我效能差異比較 104
表4- 23 教師使用不同種類軟體教學之之科技融入科學教學自我效能DIF檢定摘要表 105
表4- 24 教師不同每週平均科技融入教學次數之科技融入科學教學自我效能同質性檢定 107
表4- 25 教師不同每週平均科技融入教學次數之科技融入科學教學自我效能描述性統計與ANOVA分析摘要表 108
表4- 26 教師每周不使用的教師與每周平均使用一次以上教師科技融入科學教學自我效能DIF檢定摘要表 109
表4- 27 不同群組DIF分析後產生中度以上DIF試題之偏好情形(性別、學校規模、兼任行政與否和學歷、使用不同硬體種類、使用不同軟體種類和每週使用頻率之教師族群別) 112


圖次
圖2-1 科技學科教學知識 (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) 16
圖2-2 精緻化科技學科教學知識的模型(Cox, 2008) 18
圖2-3 ICT-TPCK的架構( Angeli & Valanides, 2009) 20
圖2-4 科技對應流程圖 (Angeli & Valanides, 2009) 21
圖2-5 ICT PCK應用進行教學系統設計的架構(Angeli, 2005) 22
圖2-6 實務性科技學科教學知識的架構(Yeh, Hsu, Wu, Hwang & Lin, 2013) 23
圖2-7 整合模型 24
圖2-8 變形模型 24
圖2-9 同一位教師的四種不同TPACK表徵(Trautmann和MaKinster, 2010) 33
圖2-10 科技融入科學教學自我效能的化合物概念圖 36
圖2-11 李克特五等第量表試題組之難度門檻 51
圖2-12 放入A、B及C三個題目後自我效能之等距量尺 52
圖2-13 試題難度圖 52
圖4- 1 受試者自我效能值與27題(刪除不合適試題後)試題難度的Wright Map 79
圖4- 2 受試者自我效能27題試題難度閾值的Wright Map 80

中文部分
丁文祺(2007)。國民中學校長教學領導、教師社群互動、教師專業實踐與學校效能關係之研究。高雄師範大學成人教育研究所論文(未出版博士論文),高雄市。
王文中(2004)。Rasch測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究,27,637-694。
李明智(2009)。高雄縣國小校長教學領導與教師教學效能關係之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育研究所論文(未出版碩士論文),屏東市。
林祖強(2012)。職前生物教師資訊科技融入學科教學知識 (TPCK) 發展之研究。臺灣師範大學生命科學研究所論文(未出版博士論文)。臺北市。
林曉雯(1994)。國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所論文(未出版博士論文)。臺北市。
沈雯(2002)。國小教師電腦自我效能與電腦焦慮之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳為聖、張惠博、郭重吉(2007)。影響國中自然科教師接受資訊科技融入教學之個人因素研究。科學教育學刊, 15(5), 543-563。
徐式寬、關秉寅(2011)。國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調查。科學教育學刊,19(4),335-357。
黃宏宇(2003)。職前教師電腦自我效能與運用資訊科技融入教學意願之調查研究--以國立交通大學教育學程學生為例。第11屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會(ICCAI2003)暨第16屆中華民國電腦輔助教學研討會宣讀論文,台北市台灣師範大學。
黃政傑、林佩璇(1996)。合作學習。台北市:五南。
孫俊傑.(2009)。國民中學兼任行政職務教師情緒勞務, 教師自我效能與學校效能關係之研究--以彰化縣為例,國立彰化師範大學教育研究所論文(未出版碩士論文)。彰化市。
教育部(2014)。各級學校資深優良教師獎勵要點。取自http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000619
教育部(2000; 2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要:自然與生活科技學習領域。教育部。
教育部(2013)。教育部人才培育白皮書。取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-4176,c243-1.php。
教育部(2015)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7944,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw 。
張順發、羅希哲(2005)。教師教學資訊素養與教學效能關係之研究. Information Technology and Libraries, 13(2), 118。
莊維貞、許金發(2008)。國小教師電腦自我效能與資訊融入教學效能相關研究. 遠東學報,25,411-430。
鄭湧涇(1987)。生物教師必備教學能力研究。中華民國(75)年度科學教育學術研討會論文彙編,1-25。
謝政志(2008)。國中兼任行政教師角色壓力、自我效能與工作倦怠之研究-以花蓮縣為例。慈濟大學教育研究所(未出版碩士論文),花蓮。
維基百科(2015年7月7日)。Branches of science。取自https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
羅慶璋、張欣怡、洪振方(2014)。中學自然個案教師網路探究教學的學習進程。數位學習科技期刊,6(3),65-89。

英文部分
Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Wang, W.-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23.
AERA, APA, & NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education). (2004). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
Albion, P. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers' preparedness for teaching with technology. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 1999) (pp. 1602-1608). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Albion, P. (2001). Some factors in the development of self-efficacy beliefs for computer use among teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 321–347.
Andich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
Angeli C., &Valanides N. (2005) Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 292–302.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article2.cfm
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Skies, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone .D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 38, 92-113.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.
Boone, W. J., Townsend, J. S., & Staver, J. (2011). Using Rasch theory to guide the practice of survey development and survey data analysis in science education and to inform science reform efforts: An exemplar utilizing STEBI self‐efficacy data. Science Education, 95(2), 258-280.
Burgoyne, N(2010) Investigating the reliabilty and construct validity of a measure of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for TPACK. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Cavin, R. M. (2007). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teachers through microteaching lesson study. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, W. L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184-1193.
Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M., Li, W., Hong, H. Y., & Koh, J. H. (2013). Validating and modelling technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
Danserau,D.F.(1988).Cooperative learning strategies. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz,& P. Alexander(Eds), Learning and study strategies:issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation, 103-120. San Diego:Academic Press.
Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning , 35-66. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 695-706.
Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., & Ellis, J. D. (1993). The development and partial validation of microcomputer utilization in teaching efficacy beliefs instrument in a science setting. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 257–263.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds), PCK and science education (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Graham, C.R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. Tech Trends, 53, 70-79.
Hall, B. (2008). Practicing teachers’ advice to preservice teachers on technology skills needed in the classroom. In: K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp 3777–3781). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved January 07, 2010, from http://www.editlib.org/p/27837.
Herron, M. D.(1971).The nature of science inquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
Hung, Y.-W., & Hsu, Y.-S.. (2007). Examining Teachers' CBT Use in the Classroom: A Study in Secondary schools in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 233-246.
Jennifer W. Shettel, Ed.D. and Kevin Bower, M.Ed. Infusing Technology into the BalancedLiteracy Classroom . eJournal of Balanced Reading Instruction, 1(2), http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com/uploads/1/8/9/6/18963113/ejbri_v1i2_shettel__bower_infusing_technology_into_balanced.pdf
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers` professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kärkkäinen, K., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Sparking innovation in STEM education with technology and collaboration: A case study of the HP Catalyst Initiative (No. 91). OECD Publishing.
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, R. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740–762.
Krajcik, J. S., Simmons, P. E., & Lunetta, V. N. (1988). A research strategy for the dynamic study of students’ concepts and problem solving strategies using science software. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 147-155.
Lawson, A.E. (2004). The Nature and Development of Scientific Reasoning: A Synthetic View. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 307-338. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-3224-2.
Lee, H.S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Construct validity of inquiry assessments: role of multiple choice and explanation item format. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 115-136.
Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38, 1-21.
Lee, M.-H., Tsai, C.C., & Chang, C.Y. (2008). Exploring teachers’ self-efficacy toward the web pedagogical content knowledge in Taiwan. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, New York, NY.
Linacre, J. M. (2005). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministeps: Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049–1050.
Liu, X., & Boone, W. J. (2006). Applications of Rasch measurement in science education. Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press.
Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science for Accepting Evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 290-298.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2),149-174.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of counseling psychology, 38(1), 30.
Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 893-899.
National Science Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nc Department of Public Instruction (2009). Immersive Technology:Gaming, Simulations & Virtual Environments in Education. http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/acre/assessment/iart.pdf
Neumann, I., Neumann, K., Nehm, R.H. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a Nature of Science Test. International Journal of Science Education. 33, 1373-1405
Niederhauser, D. S. & Perkmen, S. (2010). Beyond self-efficacy: Measuring preservice teachers’ instructional technology outcome expectations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 436-442.
Perkmen, S. (2008). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ technology integration performance. Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, 2008. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(6), 109.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Popham W. J. (1997) What’s wrong – and what’s right – with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72-75.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Joseph, R. (2002). Beyond Technology Integration: The Case. Educational technology.
Richard L. L., David V. & Leonard A. (2014) Development of a short-form measure of science and technology self-efficacy using rasch analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 641-657.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
Ritter, J. M., Boone, W. J., & Rubba, P. A. (2001). Development of an instrument to assess prospective elementary teacher self-efficacy beliefs about equitable science teaching and learning (SEBEST). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 175-198.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T. (2009 a). Examining preservice teachers’ development of technological pedagogical content knowledge in an introductory instructional technology course. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference of the Society for the Information and Technology and Teacher Education. March 2-6, Charleston, South Carolina.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T. (2009 b). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 13-17, San Diego, California.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 173-208.
Shih, C. L. , Chuang, H. H(2013) . The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students' perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education , 63, 109-118
Shin, T., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. (2009, March). Changing technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) through course experiences. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference of the Society for the Information and Technology & Teacher Education. March 2-6, Charleston, South Carolina.
Shulman, L., S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
So, H. J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101-116.
Texas State University at San Marcos. (2004, June 8). Aquarena Wetlands Project glossary of terms. Retrived from https://web.archive.org/web/20040608113114/http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~wetlands/Glossary/glossary.html.
Trautmann, N. M., & MaKinster, J. G. (2010). Flexibly adaptive professional development in support of teaching science with geospatial technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 351-370.
Turkan, S., & Liu, O. L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2343-2369.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
Wang,W. C. (2008). Assessment of differential item functioning. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(4), 1-22.
Wang, L., Ertmer, A. P., & Newby, J. T. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250.
Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2012). Influence of gender and computer teaching efficacy on computer acceptance among Malaysian student teachers: An extended technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1190-1207.
Worch, E. A., Li, L., Herman, T. L., Hechter, R. P., Phyfe, L. D., & Vermette, L. A. (2012). Preservice early childhood teachers' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy for ICT integration in science instruction. Education Research and Perspectives, 39(1), 90-103.
Wu, H. K., Hsu, Y. S., & Hwang, F. K. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of technology in classrooms: Does school size matter?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 63-85.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2007). ACER ConQuest version 2.0: generalised item response modelling software. Camberwell, Vic., ACER Press.
Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., Hwang, F. K., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge‐practical (TPACK‐practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 707-722.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 張炳煌(2011)。影響國中畢業生高中職選擇學校因素之研究。教育政策論壇,14(2),145-177。
2. 曹峰銘、蔡佩君、王加恩、呂信慧(2012)。高功能自閉症學齡兒童的心智理論與 口語敘說。中華心理學刊,101,54-3,365-383。
3. 1. 王明妤、許旭昇,「專利組合分析方法之建構:以磁阻性隨機存取記憶體為例」,科技管理學刊第十卷第三期,民國94年,頁97-120。
4. 李坤崇、莊雅慈(2003)。高中職社區化就學社區規劃的省思-由就學社區到適性學習社區。教育研究月刊,107,48-66。
5. 李秀鳳(2013)。十二年國民基本教育入學制度平等導向與菁英導向的論述分析。公民訓育學報,22,101-131。
6. 朱玉仿、陳清溪、蔡明學(2007)。2006年臺灣地區民眾對重要教育議題看法之調查。教育研究與發展期刊,3(3),1-32。
7. 尹蓉先(2013)。誰來決定孩子的未來~十二年國教入學方式研究。雙溪教育論壇,2,1-28。
8. 曹純瓊(1996)。自閉症兒童的語言發展過程與其語言溝通能力特徵。特殊教育季刊,58,25-32。
9. 張炳煌、蔡清華、陳盈傑(2014)。高雄市國中教師對樂學計畫合理性評估之研究:方案理論評鑑的觀點。教育科學研究期刊,59(1),33-67。
10. 張逸蓁、廖勻華、廖錦文(2014)。職業類科教師對十二年國民基本教育先導計畫影響招生效益的看法。明新學報,40(1),65-75。
11. 王文中(2004)。Rasch測量理論與其在教育和心理之應用。教育與心理研究,27,637-694。
12. 吳為聖、張惠博、郭重吉(2007)。影響國中自然科教師接受資訊科技融入教學之個人因素研究。科學教育學刊, 15(5), 543-563。
13. 徐式寬、關秉寅(2011)。國民中小學教師資訊融入教學素養評量表之建構與調查。科學教育學刊,19(4),335-357。
14. 莊維貞、許金發(2008)。國小教師電腦自我效能與資訊融入教學效能相關研究. 遠東學報,25,411-430。
15. 羅慶璋、張欣怡、洪振方(2014)。中學自然個案教師網路探究教學的學習進程。數位學習科技期刊,6(3),65-89。
 
無相關點閱論文